This juror, according to KSL is willing to help both sides sharpen up their
presentations. My question, is he hunting for money to compensate for his
decision? It would not be Novell as this juror with an associate degree in law
and justice and computer background has used his extreme knowledge to influence
the other jurors. He sounds as if he is the complete expert and the others were
all novices in this 2 month case and 3 day deliberation, all in his 21 year
experience. He was 2 years old when the Windows 95 process was going on and
WordPerfect was the King of word processing programs. Microsoft Word was a basic
@Alternate: You got that right. Novell is indeed the victim, but the guys at
WordPerfect are the winners here, not Microsoft. They managed to sell their
company to Novell for far more than what it was worth, then laughed all the way
to the bank when Novell was stuck with an inferior product that wouldn't work on
the latest OS.To succeed in business not only do you have to know
when to get in, you also have to know when to get out and how to take the most
Seems to me that one has lost their moral compass when you can be a little bit
wrong, but not enough to be judged wrong. Can you just cheat a little bit
and it's OK? Lie a little bit and that's OK? Would you really like to go into
an operating room and have a doctor who had cheated and lied a little bit
through college operate on you?
Some points.This trial would have never happened if Novell had not
made bad business decisions and needed money to survive. This trial like grew
out of brain storming ways to keep in business with bad products. Novell let
many years go by before they even decided to sue.As far as suing for
profit goes, Novell is now 1-1. They defeated SCO and lost to Microsoft.WordPerfect was a great DOS based product. Even with the the missing
ingredient, no one can say that it would have been as good in the
"Windows" world. Frankly it needed a huge overall to be a good product
in "Windows" not the patchwork band-aid approach it received.I feel bad about the juror attacks. If there was a bias it was against
Microsoft. Maybe Novell should be suing the guys who sold them WP
for billions when it was somewhat worthless when Novell made the purchase.
It is sometimes the case with juries that peer pressure leads to a decision more
than anything else. There could have been other jurors who may have wanted to
come to a different conclusion but didn't have to because the one dissenter held
his ground. Good for him.
Coyote, 1:52, the difference is, in Twelve Angry Men, the accused was innocent.
Microsoft has never been innocent since Bill Gates dropped out of college to
build it. It had to succeed at all costs or he was out of luck. I don't hate the
rich, or big corporations, but I do hate the attitude that anyone is above the
law! This kid from Magna is irresponsible in his lust for fame.
I agree with thunderbolt at 5 am. Wordperfect was far superior to Word. Only
because I was forced to switch at my job, did I switch.
I think a lot of folks are missing the point on what, exactly, the lone juror
held out on. He mentioned that he didn't believe in the "what if"
scenario of whether WP would have been successful had MS been cooperative. To
me, that should be beside the point. As the juror noted, no one is in a
position to say which product would've won out. What should've been the
defining issue was whether or not Microsoft took anti-competitive action to
disadvantage a competitor. They should've been judged based on the evidence of
what they did, not whether or not WP would've been successful or not. That,
quite frankly, is actually beside the point n determine guil. Now, in
determining payout is another thing. At least five other jurors said they
would've convicted MS, but rewarded no damages to Novell. It sounds to me as if
this juror confused guilt/innocence with compensation. It's too bad
there is no real test of what constitutes a "peer" in our judicial
system other than a fellow citizen.
I am Not a big fan of the Would a Could a World. So I tend to agree with the
Juror.In a Should a Could a World, Ma Bell would never have been
broken up. Roe v Wade would never have gone 5-4 in favor of Genoside.A lot of things Could a- Should a happened. Gates has the right to
stand alone if No one can stand with him. I use his stuff because it works and
works well. I do not believe that they should have been paid a dime.
I am glad that some people can hold out if its the right thing to do.No one died in this, No one was Aborted, MIllions where wasted in legal costs
and the waste of time.If only is Fiction, make believe in a Real
World.I hope the young man is able to move byound his dead end job
and live a nice normal life.
"Just sayin. More times than not, when one person out of 12 sees something
differently than the other 11, that one person is wrong."In
this case the subject was money. In other cases it can mean a persons life.If you have never seen it I would recommend an old black and white movie with
the title of TWELVE ANGRY MEN. In the movie the 12th man (played by Henry Fonda)
is not convinced by the evidence presented. He holds out and holds out until
every questionable point has been established. His position ultimately changes
the opinions of the other eleven jurors, breaking through their personal biases
and desire for a quick verdict to get on with their lives. The result was an
innocent young man was not sentenced to death. If such was the
motivation of this "hold-out" then we will thank God (especially if we
are the wrongfully accused)for such principled fellow citizens.
I am certainly glad I wasn't on that jury. Intelligent, engaged posters on this
site can't agree on this issue, but I enjoy reading the different views. I don't
think the holdout should be in the spotlight as a hero, if he is truly after
justice. He won, but should soldier on quietly.
Wow - all I can say is Wow. It is so obvious that an egomaniac has stopped
justice from being served. It is obvious that MS did in fact change windows to
stop Wordperfect from being able to continue on. There are a few comments on
here that are so out of touch with reality - like Word being better than WP at
the time. Bill Gates was obsessed with the competition and how to squash them -
he even gave out Word free for a long time to stop WP. If Bill Gates and others
read this then know that you will not escape justice in the long run. No amount
of charity work will stop you or anyone from having adversely effected the lives
of thousands who worked for WP and Novell. One egomaniac will not stop true
justice in the long run and all the marginalizing of these events in your mind
will not change the truth - MS engaged in pernicious practices to stop WP and
Novell from cornering the majority of the word processing industry.
Someone's desire for the spotlight to show off his associates degree cost Novell
stockholders $86.7 million per minute-of-fame.
Just sayin. More times than not, when one person out of 12 sees something
differently than the other 11, that one person is wrong.I just hope
this dude isn't thumping his chest that he put his name on Bill Gate's map by
Re: Still Blue after all these years"preventing the other 11 from
their decision"That's an illogical argument. In what way did
this juror prevent the other 11 jurors from their decision? Are you suggesting
that his opinion was not valid, or are you suggesting that he should have
abandoned his integrity and gone alone with the herd instinct?
I think the kid got enthralled with Bill Gates. And I believe he really
enjoyed being the lone dissenter and preventing the other 11 from their
When eleven people can see that Microsoft used its power to destroy a competing
program, then the "facts" clearly show that Microsoft needs to pay.
I'm sure that Microsoft counted on the "Perry Mason" syndrome where at
least one juror would not find them guilty unless they broke down and confessed
- on the stand.No matter how old a juror is, no matter what his job
is, no matter where he lives, he is still responsible to look at the evidence
and reach a conclusion based on the facts presented, not on his loyalty to Bill
Gates, to Donald Duck, or to Santa.If the facts presented showed
that Microsoft had violated the law, then the jury is duty bound to vote
"guilty".There will be another trial. There will be
another jury. Now that the lawyers know why one juror held out, they will be
better prepared to ask questions of the witnesses to prove, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Microsoft violated the law.
Dissapointing. My sympathies are with Novell.
WordPerfect is a far superior program, compared to MS Word. This is what is
Can't figure out how they convinced the other 11 jurors to favor Novell. Every
thing about the case reported by the news media indicated Novell was trying to
scam Microsoft to steal MS propriety intellectual property.Many time
what is not said in a trial is just as important as what is said. Evidence is
not always documented on a form and many times withheld from the court and a
jury.We should thank this juror for being true to their-self and
their sense of right and wrong and intent of both corporations which lawyers
tend to muddle with irrelevant dribble.I agree with how it all
turned out and finally ending this battle of CEO's and corporations vs. citizens
rights of proprietary intellect. And that is what this was all about, corporate
america vs american citizen. This was a victory for the individuals in business
with independent and private companies.
Have you heard of the "CSI effect" on juries? Looks like we can call
this the "Stevens-Heneger College of Criminal Justice effect" in this
case for our good friend from Magna.
"endless effort to sue everyone in the software industry"? Not a
chance. Other than the SCO case, in which SCO was the instigator, this is pretty
much Novell's only major litigation ever. Get your facts straight.During 1993-1998, Microsoft engaged in all kinds of shady behavior to
illegally use its operating system monopoly to take down competitors in a score
of other markets; if our government were doing a halfway decent job of enforcing
its antitrust laws they definitely would have been broken up by 1998.That we don't know how consumers would have acted if the world had been
different has zero relevance to the case here. Nothing about counterfactual
hypotheses can ever be totally proven, and contrary to Mr. Alvey's claims,
Novell had no obligation to produce such an impossible proof.Novell
had a solid case here, and the one holdout juror's stubbornness and refusal to
adhere to the standards of evidence in civil cases have led to a perversion of
justice. Hopefully the case will get a reasonable jury when it's appealed.
Re: JKR | 8:12 p.m. Dec. 17, 2011 "It is simply unbelievable that one
guy, a 21 y/o no less, was able to thwart justice here"In what
way did this juror "thwart justice"? Did you expect him to abandon
his beliefs and bow to the will of the majority?I wouldn't put
21-year olds down. They are old enough to die for their country.
rhappahanock:Really? The "Utah Legislature needs to take a stand and
forbid Windows"? Don't give them any ideas! I think this jurors age
isn't an issue. He is of legal voting age. His opinion matters as much as
anyone on the jury.
I would be a bit less willing to do an interview if I was the single person
standing in the way of the Novell litigation engine in their endless effort to
sue everyone in the software industry. Did Novell fail to support their tort or
were the other jurors loyal to the home team?@ JKR: Apple's suit
against Microsoft over 'look and feel', which many industry people believe they
would have won, was settled out of court. Microsoft agreed to buy Apple stock,
which helped Apple to survive several bad business decisions they had recently
made. Microsoft benefited by being allowed to continue their course of
development for Windows and by retaining a small but lucrative market for their
Macintosh compatible products.@ rhappahannock: Hating Microsoft is
like hating gravity. If tomorrow there were no Microsoft software the world
would face a global economic crisis beyond comprehension.
It is simply unbelievable that one guy, a 21 y/o no less, was able to thwart
justice here. It seems highly likely that the other jurors tried to persuade
this guy until they were blue in the face, then they finally gave up. This one
guy prevented more than $1B in reparations from changing hands, forcing another
prolonged expensive trial. Novell was clearly wronged and Microsoft has gotten
away with plenty before. Does anyone remember the big showdown of the 90s where
Apply tried to sue about Microsoft's use of pulldown menus -- clearly an Apple
innovation -- and lost?
The desnews did a terrific job reporting this story. The photos were good too. I
sort of agree with the hold out juror. Just because he was in the minority does
not make him a "contrarian". He had a valid point. As a reluctant user
of WordPerfect at the time, I was surprised Novell paid such an outrageous price
for Wordperfect. It was not a good product and who is to say that Novell would
rhappahannock:You are confusing criminal and civil law. The hold
out appeared to be saying that Novell had failed to prove a couple of essential
elements. He was right.
It seems to me the dissenting juror seems to be saying that Microsoft was
guilty, but simply differed on whether there should be a significant penalty.
He should have saved that for the penalty phase of the trial - not whether
Microsoft was guilty or not. It seems to me that the juror was just trying to
be a publicity seeking contrarian, and not just decide the matter at hand.Microsoft has clearly abused it's monopoly, and it has caused a great
deal of harm to the development of computer systems. Without Microsoft,
innovations such as the netbook, iPad, and Tivo would have happened years
earlier. The Utah State legislature needs to take a stand, and
forbid the use of Windows unless absolutely necessary. There are other options
out there that will work just as well or better, and it would take a law like
this to force IT to actually consider a better option.Finally, here
a great money-saving tip. When you purchase a computer, reject the windows
license, and install Linux instead. Then, return your Windows certificates to
the manufacturer, and get your "Windows Refund." By contract, they
will have to refund your money.